The Effect of Exercise Order in Circuit Training on Muscular Strength and Functional Fitness in Older Women
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Original Research
The Effect of Exercise Order in Circuit Training on Muscular Strength and
Functional Fitness in Older Women
DIOGO CORREIA CARDOZO†1,2, BELMIRO FREITAS DE SALLES‡1, PIETRO
MANNARINO†1, ANA PAULA SENA VASCONCELOS†2, HUMBERTO MIRANDA‡1,
JEFFREY M. WILLARDSON‡3, ROBERTO SIMÃO‡1
1Physical Education Post-Graduation Program, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, RJ, BRAZIL; 2Instituto Metodista Granbery – FAMIDADE, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL;
3Department of Health and Human Performance, Montana State University – Billings, Billings,
MT, USA
†Denotes graduate student author, ‡Denotes professional author
ABSTRACT
International Journal of Exercise Science 12(4): 657-665, 2019. The purpose of this study was to analyze
the effect of different orders of exercises in circuit training on strength and functional fitness in older women over
a 12-week period. After 10 repetition maximum (10-RM) and functional fitness baseline testing, thirty older women
were randomly assigned into two groups. The exercise order for Group 1 was leg press, wide-grip lat pulldown,
knee extension, pec deck fly, plantar flexion and triceps extension; Group 2 performed the same exercises, but in
the opposite order: triceps extension, plantar flexion, pec deck fly, knee extension, wide-grip lat pulldown and leg
press. Both groups performed the circuit three times with a load that permitted 8 to 10 repetitions per exercise set.
Both groups exhibited gains in 10-RM strength and functional fitness test performance (p ≤ 0.05). In Comparing
groups, the G1 presented greater strength gains for the wide-grip lat pulldown, while G2 showed higher values for
the plantar flexion and triceps extension exercises (p ≤ 0.05). Both circuit exercise orders were effective and could
be applied to promote strength and functional fitness gains. However, based on the results for the wide-grip lat
pulldown, plantar flexion and triceps extension, it seems that exercise order should be considered when specific
muscle weaknesses are a priority, so that these muscles are trained first within a circuit.
KEY WORDS: Resistance, training, strength, recovery, performance
INTRODUCTION
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (3) position stand on progression models in
resistance training recommends rotation of upper and lower body exercises with minimum rest
between them using the circuit training method. This method might be particularly useful to
train the entire body in a single session and promote localized muscular endurance and strength
gains in older adults.Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
The ACSM position stand on progression models in resistance training (3) also recommends that
large muscle group exercises or basic exercises should generally be performed first in a training
session for strength development. However, in the review by Simão et al. (18), citing three
studies involving untrained young men (6, 20, 21), greater increases in maximal strength were
evident when exercises were performed at the beginning of a session, regardless of whether the
exercises were for large or small muscle groups, suggesting that most important exercises
should be performed first.
The ACSM (2) also published a position stand about Exercise and Physical Activity for Older Adults
that recommends progressive resistance training be performed at least two days per week;
incorporating moderate to vigorous intensity or weight bearing calisthenics (8-10 exercises
involving the major muscle groups of 8-12 repetitions each) that train major muscle groups.
However, it remains unclear whether there is an optimal exercise order for circuit training to
promote strength gains in older adults.
In terms of chronic adaptations, the order of exercises during a session can influence the
efficiency and effectiveness of a resistance training program (18). Previous studies suggest that
circuit training promotes neuromuscular, cardiorespiratory and body composition
improvements in older adults (16, 17). However, no previous studies have examined the effects
of different exercise orders in circuit training on muscle strength and functionality in older
adults. Comparison between different exercise orders in circuit training would provide practical
insight for prescriptive purposes in older adults. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
analyze the effect of different orders of exercises in circuit training on strength and functional
fitness in older women over a 12-week period.
METHODS
Participants
The sample size was determined from a study pilot previously performed in our laboratory,
based on a significance of 5% and a test power of 80%. Thirty elderly women were randomly
divided into two groups: one performing large muscle mass exercises first (G1 n= 15; 71.1 ± 6.0
yrs., 64.7 ± 10.0 kg, 153.8 ± 5.8 cm, 27.5 ± 4.5 kg.m-2) and the other performing the exact opposite
exercise order, with small muscle mass exercises performed first (G2 n=15; 73.4 ± 8.2yrs, 63.9 ±
13.9 kg, 152.5 ± 5.2 cm, 27.5 ± 5.6 kg.m-2). Inclusion criteria were the following for all subjects: a)
not having experience in resistance training; b) not performing any structured exercise for the
duration of the study other than the prescribed resistance training; c) did not have any functional
limitations or medical conditions that would be contraindicated by the research protocol. All
subjects read and signed an informed consent document after being informed of the testing and
training procedures to be performed during the study. The experimental procedures were
approved by the Ethics Committee of the University. The study was conducted in compliance
with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on
Harmonization Good Clinical Practices Guidelines.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
658Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
Protocol
The 10-RM tests (19) were performed on two nonconsecutive days for four exercises: leg press
(LP), wide-grip latissimus pulldown (WP), plantar flexion (PF) and triceps extension (TE). Two
weeks of familiarization took place prior to the 10-RM tests (four sessions). The 10-RM tests were
performed following the anthropometric measurements and functional fitness tests (14) on the
first day. After 48 hours, the 10-RM tests were repeated to determine test-retest reliability. The
heaviest load achieved on either of the test days was considered the pre-training 10-RM. No
exercise was allowed in the 48 hours between 10-RM tests. The 10-RM was determined in fewer
than five attempts with a rest interval of five minutes between attempts and 10 minutes before
the start of the test for the next exercise. Following the twelve weeks of training, the 10-RM tests
and functional fitness tests were repeated.
After the 10-RM tests, the remaining exercises were added (knee extension – KE, pec deck fly –
PD). The complete exercise protocol included 6 exercises. The exercise order for G1 was LP, WP,
KE, PD, PF, and TE. The G2 performed the same exercises in the opposite order: TE, PF, PD, KE,
WP, LP. All exercises for both groups were performed for three sets in a circuit format. Each set
was performed between a range of 8 – 10 repetitions with 70% of 10-RM. Adjustment of training
loads was done through the Omni-Res perception scale whenever volunteers completed three
sets of 10 repetitions comfortably (8, 11). In addition, an experienced strength and conditioning
professional supervised all training sessions. Frequency of the training program was two
sessions per week with at least 48 hours of rest between sessions, and two minutes between sets
and exercises. Twenty-four sessions were performed during the twelve weeks training period.
The resistance for a given exercise was increased whenever an individual could perform more
than the prescribed number of repetitions (8 – 10 repetitions) of a particular exercise. Prior to
each training session, subjects performed a specific warm up, consisting of 20 repetitions with
approximately 50% of the load used in the first exercise of the training session. During the
exercise sessions, subjects were verbally encouraged to perform all sets with a complete range
of motion, but there was no attempt to control the repetition velocity. Adherence to the program
was 100% for all groups.
Body composition measurement: Four skinfold measures (biceps, triceps, subscapular, and
suprailiac) were made using a CESCORF® skinfold caliper. The Durnin and Wormerley (7)
equation was used to estimate body fat percentages.
Functional tests: Functional tests applied were based on Rikli and Jones´s protocol (14). Tests
used were: 1) 30s Chair Stand - Number of full stands in 30s with arms folded across chest, 2)
Arm Curl - Number of bicep curls in 30s holding hand weight (women 5 lb), 3) Chair Sit and
Reach - From sitting position at front of chair with leg extended and hands reaching toward
toes, number of centimeters (+ or −) from extended fingers to tip of toe, 4) Back Scratch - With
one hand reaching over shoulder and one up middle of back, number of inches between
extended middle fingers (+ or −), 5) 8-Foot Up-and-Go - Number of seconds required to get up
from seated position, walk 8 feet, turn, and return to seated position on chair and 6) 6-Minute
Walk - Number of meters walked in 6 min around 50-meter course.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
659Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
Statistical analysis
The total work performed by G1 and G2 was calculated by multiplying the number of sessions
by the number of sets and load (session x sets x load). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC)
were used to determine 10-RM test-retest reliability. The statistical analysis was initially done
by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. All variables presented normal distribution. A 2X2 repeated-
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze group X trail interactions in 10-
RM, body composition and functional fitness tests, post-hoc Bonferroni. T-test were used to
analyze for differences in total work performed. An alpha level of p ≤ 0.05 was considered
statistically significant for all comparisons. Probability values of p < 0.05 were regarded as
statistically significant. All data were analyzed by IBM SPSS version 20.0.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences between groups in anthropometric parameters, 10-RM
loads, or functional fitness test performance prior to training. The 10-RM test-retest reliability
showed high ICC at baseline for G1 (LP, r=0.99; WP, r=0.99; PF, r=0.99; TE, r=0.98), G2 (LP,
r=0.98; WP, r=0.96; PF, r=0.96; TE, r=0.98) and after 12 weeks of training G1 (LP, r=0.99; WP,
r=0.99; PF, r=0.99; TE, r=0.97), G2 ( LP, r=0.98; WP, r=0.96; PF, r=0.96; TE, r=0.98).There was no
difference in total work between G1 and G2 (8184 ±1423.1 vs. 8222.4 ± 1309.1; t28 = -0,077; p =
0.94), respectively.
Table 1 shows the anthropometric characteristics at baseline and at 12 weeks of training. There
was a significant trial effect for %body fat (mean reduction = 1.6%; 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.1 %), lean
body mass (mean improvement = 1.0 kg; 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.4 kg) and body fat (mean reduction
= 1.0 kg; 95% CI = -0.6 to -1.4 kg). Both groups exhibited significant improvements in lean body
mass and reductions in body fat.
Table 1. Anthropometric characteristics (n=15 in each group)
G1 Mean ± G2 Mean ± Group vs.
Variable Trial Group effect Trial effect
SD SD Trial effect
Age (years) 71.1 ± 6.0 73.4 ± 8.2 - - -
Pre 153.8 ± 5.8 152.5 ± 5.2 - - -
Height (cm)
Post 153.9 ± 5.9 152.6 ± 5.2
Pre 64.7 ± 10.0 63.9 ± 13.9 F = .02 F = .02 F = 0.78
Weight (kg)
Post 64.5 ± 8.9 64.1 ± 13.4 p = .90 p = .90 p = 0.38
Pre 27.5 ± 4.5 27.5 ± 5.6 F = .001 F = .69 F = 0.79
IMC (kg.m2)
Post 27.3 ± 4.2 27.5 ± 5.4 p = .98 p = .41 p = 0.38
Pre 41.9 ± 4.2 42.5 ± 4.8 F = .239 F = 33.561 F = .350
% Body Fat
Post 40.1 ± 4.7 41.1 ± 5.2 p = .63 p < .001* p = .56
Pre 37.3 ± 4.0 36.2 ± 5.1 F = .465 F = 28.082 F = .015
Lean body mass (kg)
Post 38.3 ± 3.6 37.1 ± 5.0 p = .50 p < .001* p = .91
Pre 27.4 ± 6.3 27.8 ± 9.0 F = .036 F = 27.636 F = .827
Fat mass (kg)
Post 26.2 ± 6.1 26.9 ± 8.8 p = .85 p < .001* p = .37
(CI 95%: 95%confidence interval for mean; SD - standard deviation)
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
660Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
Figure 1 shows the 10-RM test results in kg. There was a significant trial effect for Leg Press (F
= 262.163; p < .001). Both groups showed an average improvement of 13.9kg (95% CI = 12.1 to
15.6). There was a significant group X trial interaction effect for Lat Pull Down (F = 6.736; p =
0.01). G1 vs. G2 have an average improvement of 10.4 ± 2.7 kg vs. 7.7 ± 3.1 kg, respectively. There
was a significant group X trial interaction effect for Plantar Flexion (F = 4.979; p = 0.03). G2 vs.
G1 have an average improvement of 6.5 ± 2.6 kg vs. 4.7 ± 1.7 kg, respectively. There was a
significant group X trial interaction effect for Triceps Extension (F = 14.824; p = 0.001). G2 vs. G1
have an average improvement of 13.2 ± 5.1 kg vs. 7.7 ± 2.2 kg, respectively.
G1 G1
60 Leg Press 35 Lat Pull Down
*
* 30 *
50 G2 G2
#
25
40
10RM (kg)
10RM (kg)
20
30
15
20
10
10 5
0 0
Baseline 12 weeks Baseline 12 weeks
G1 Triceps Extension
30 Plantar Flexion 40
* 35 *
25 G2 *
* 30
20
25
10RM (kg)
10RM (kg)
15 20
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
Baseline 12 weeks Baseline 12 weeks
Figure 1. 10-RM (Mean and SD) of LP, WP, PF and TE exercises for G1 (n=15) and G2 (n=15) at baseline and at 12
weeks of RT. # Trial effect; *Group X trial interactions.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
661Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
There was a significant trial effect for all fitness test performance. Both groups increased
functional fitness test performance (see Table 2).
Table 2. Functional fitness results (n=15 in each group)
G1 Mean ± G2 Mean ± Group Trial Group vs.
Variable Trial
SD SD effect effect Trial effect
Pre 12.5 ± 2.9 13.8 ± 1.8 F = 1.223 F = 21.385 F = .190
30s Chair Stand1
Post 14.9 ± 3.9 15.8 ± 2.4 p = .28 p < .001* p = .67
Pre 17.7 ± 2.3 18.1 ± 3.4 F = 0.000 F = 79.122 F = 2.037
Arm Curl1
Post 20.8 ± 2.3 20.3 ± 2.8 p = .99 p < .001* p = .17
Chair Sit-and- Pre 1.2 ± 4.4 2.6 ± 5.0 F = .364 F = 38.423 F = .100
Reach2 Post 5.8 ± 5.9 6.8 ± 5.5 p = .55 p < .001* p = .76
Pre -9.4 ± 10.7 -13.1 ± 11.9 F = .741 F = 24.617 F = .065
Back Scratch2
Post -3.3 ± 9.9 -6.4 ± 9.2 p = .40 p < .001* p = .80
Pre 8.1 ± 1.2 7.8 ± 1.6 F = .179 F = 96.221 F = .060
Foot Up-and-Go3
Post 5.8 ± 1.1 5.7 ± 0.7 p = .68 p < .001* p = .81
Pre 447.4 ± 77.1 480.3 ± 37.3 F = 1.272 F = 9.587 F = 1.320
6 Minute Walk4
Post 489.1 ± 49.9 499.4 ± 43.9 p = .27 p = .005* p = .26
CI 95%: 95%confidence interval for mean; SD - standard deviation; 1Number of repetitions; 2Value in
centimeters (cm); 3Value in seconds (s); 4Value in meters (m).
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this was the first study to investigate the effect of different exercise orders in
a circuit format in older people. The current results revealed significant differences in strength
gains on all tested exercises. Our findings also suggest that circuit training in either order (i.e.
large to small muscle mass or small to large muscle mass) is equally effective to promote gains
in functional fitness and body composition improvements.
Exercise order is an important variable in resistance prescription; however, literature analyzing
its chronic effects in older adults is scarce. This lack of available research makes it very difficult
to compare our results with previous studies (6, 20, 21, 22). Previous studies in younger adult
samples showed that greater strength increases were achieved for exercises when placed at the
beginning of an exercise session, independent of whether it was a large or small muscle mass
exercise. The results of the present study demonstrated that all exercises increased muscle
strength levels (pre versus post intervention). However, the strength gains were influenced by
the order of the exercises, for example, the G1 showed greater values for the WP exercise, while
the G2 showed greater values in the TE and PF exercises, respectively. These results agree with
those found by other studies (6, 20, 21, 22). However, it is important to highlight that for exercise
LP did not present statistically significant differences between groups after 12 weeks. A possible
explanation for this fact may be due to the different muscle groups worked in the training
sessions and also by the circuit protocol that alternates exercises of upper and lower limbs with
minimum interval between them.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
662Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
Circuit training is a time-efficient method recommended for older adults (2, 17). Moreover,
previous studies demonstrated that circuit training results in neuromuscular, cardiorespiratory
and body composition (fat free mass and bone mineral density) improvements in older adults
(16) and even in trained young men (1). Romero-Arenas et al. (16) compared the effects of high
intensity circuit training versus traditional resistance training over 12 weeks on upper and lower
body strength, body composition and cardiovascular parameters during an incremental
treadmill test. Both groups showed significant increases in isokinetic strength, lean mass and
bone mineral density, but only the circuit training group showed a significant decrease in fat
mass. These results suggest that circuit training can be effective for older adults if exercises are
performed at high intensities. Our results were consistent with Romero-Arenas et al. (16),
demonstrating that in both circuit training programs (irrespective of exercise order) with
moderate intensity loads (eight to ten repetitions at Omni-Res RPE scale of 8 – 10), resulted in
muscle strength, body composition (increase of lean mass, reduction of fat mass and percentage
of fat) and functional fitness improvements for all exercises and tests performed.
Muscle strength is a key factor in the ability to perform daily living activities into old age and
maintaining quality of life (4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15). Furtado et al. (9) conducted a cross-sectional study
with 700 elderly women to verify the effects of an eight-month multimodal resistance training
program performed three sessions a week. Each session was conducted in 30 minutes and
followed a circuit format, consisting of three sets of 15-20 repetitions using body weight and
elastic bands at moderate intensity. There are some methodological differences to the present
study, like the lower intensity loads; however, there were significant improvements in strength
and functional fitness.
It´s important to mention that the present study had some limitations. The diet of subjects was
not controlled, daily caloric intake was not registered and body composition parameters used
in our study were not measured with gold standard procedures. Moreover, we studied a sample
composed exclusively of elderly women; further research should address other populations.
Lastly, it is clear that circuit training is effective, but it should be compared to traditional
resistance training performed in straight sets.
In conclusion, circuit training increased muscle strength and functional fitness in older women.
Therefore, both circuit exercise orders were effective and could be applied to promote strength
and functional fitness gains. However, based on the results for the wide-grip latissimus
pulldown, plantar flexion and triceps extension, it seems that exercise order should be
considered when specific muscle weaknesses are a priority, so that these muscles are trained
first within a circuit.
REFERENCES
1. Alcaraz PE, Perez-Gomez J, Chavarrias M, Blazevich AJ. Similarity in adaptations to high-resistance circuit vs.
traditional strength training in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 25(9): 2519-2527, 2011.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
663Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on exercise and physical activity for older adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 41(7): 1510-1530, 2009.
3. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression models in resistance training for healthy
adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41(3): 687-708, 2009.
4. Artero EG, Lee DC, Ruiz JR, Sui X, Ortega FB, Church TS, Lavie CJ, Castillo MJ, Blair SN. A prospective study of
muscular strength and all-cause mortality in men with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardio 57(18): 1831-1837, 2011.
5. Brill PA, Macera CA, Davis DR, Blair SN, Gordon NEIL. Muscular strength and physical function. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 32(2): 412-416, 2000.
6. Dias I, de Salles BF, Novaes J, Costa PB, Simão R. Influence of exercise order on maximum strength in untrained
young men. J Sci Med Sport 13(1): 65-69, 2010.
7. Durnin JVGA, Womersley JVGA. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold
thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutri 32(1): 77-97, 1974.
8. Farinatti PT, Geraldes AA, Bottaro MF, Lima MVI, Albuquerque RB, Fleck SJ. Effects of different resistance
training frequencies on the muscle strength and functional performance of active women older than 60
years. J Strength Cond Res 27(8): 2225-2234, 2013.
9. Furtado HL, Sousa N, Simão R, Pereira FD, Vilaça-Alves J. Physical exercise and functional fitness in
independently living vs institutionalized elderly women: a comparison of 60-to 79-year-old city dwellers. Clin
Interv Aging 10: 795-801, 2015.
10. Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Fielding RA, Fiatarone MA, Evans WJ, Roubenoff R. Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-
yr longitudinal study. J Appl Physiol 88(4): 1321-1326, 2000.
11. Gearhart RF, Riechman SE, Lagally KM, Andrews RD, Robertson RJ. Safety of using the adult OMNI Resistance
Exercise Scale to determine 1-RM in older men and women. Percept Mot Skills 113(2): 671-676, 2011.
12. Hurley BF, Roth SM. Strength training in the elderly: effects on risk factors for age-related diseases. Sports Med
30: 249-268, 2000.
13. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Ross R. Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated
with functional impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc 50(5): 889-896, 2002.
14. Rikli RE, Jones CJ. Development and validation of a functional fitness test for community-residing older
adults. J Aging Phys Act 7(2): 129-161, 1999.
15. Rikli RE, Jones CJ. Development and validation of criterion-referenced clinically relevant fitness standards for
maintaining physical independence in later years. Gerontologist 53(2): 255-267, 2013.
16. Romero-Arenas S, Blazevich AJ, Martínez-Pascual M, Pérez-Gómez J, Luque AJ, López-Román F. J, Alcaraz PE.
Effects of high-resistance circuit training in an elderly population. Exp Gerontol 48(3): 334-340, 2013.
17. Romero-Arenas S, Martínez-Pascual M,Alcaraz PE. Impact of resistance circuit training on neuromuscular,
cardiorespiratory and body composition adaptations in the elderly. Aging Dis 4(5): 256-263, 2013.
18. Simão R, de Salles BF, Figueiredo T, Dias I, Willardson JM. Exercise order in resistance training. Sports
Med 42(3): 251-265, 2012.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
664Int J Exerc Sci 12(4): 657-665, 2019
19. Simão R, Farinatti PTV, Polito MD, Maior AS, Fleck SJ. Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions
performed and perceived exertion during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 19(1): 152–156, 2005.
20. Simão R, Spineti J, de Salles BF, Oliveira LF, Matta T, Miranda F, Miranda H, Costa PB. Influence of exercise
order on maximum strength and muscle thickness in untrained men. J Sports Sci Med 9(1): 1-7, 2010.
21. Spineti J, de Salles BF, Rhea MR, Lavigne D, Matta T, Miranda F,Simão R. Influence of exercise order on
maximum strength and muscle volume in nonlinear periodized resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 24(11):
2962-2969, 2010.
22. Spinet J, Figueiredo T, Miranda H, de Salles BF, Fernandes L, Simão R. The effects of exercise order and
periodized resistance training on maximum strength and muscle thickness: original research. Int Sport Med J 15(4):
374-390, 2014.
International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com
665You can also read
